T1B

Well, if anything, we can at least put a slug in this retarded USC-MNC discussion...

Ken wrote:What an absolutely horrific O-Line.

This.

Losing their best lineman, Khaled Holmes, hurt immensely, but even with him they weren't that impressive for most of the Syracuse game. Without him tonight, they were gawdawful.

Pssst... southern CAL



Someone would like to have a word with you.

Congrats, Mikey. Your guys just plain have USC's number, and you kicked ass in the trenches on both sides of the ball tonight. The better team definitely won.

Okay, so with USC now done for the year, who's left to stop Bama? I don't see anyone beating them. Perhaps LSU will, but either way it looks like the SEC will breeze to their seventh straight title.

Umm, go Oregon?

Watching Kiffykins and The Ogre getting their asses handed to them is always a good thing.

Fukk them.

Can't wait to hear about the non-calls that cost Cal their game.

Time to go savor the sweet replay...

:twisted:

Congrats to the Cardinal!

The Stanford defense deserves a lot of credit. Against an offense that scored 48 last year and was supposedly even better this year, they constantly pressured Barkley, completely stuffed the running game and didn't allow a score for almost the entire final three quarters. As good as the front seven played, I don't think I've ever seen the defensive backfield on this team play with so much confidence and agressiveness, delivering some great hits and constantly gang tackling. Yes, Lee and Woods broke free a few times, but remember this is the greatest pair of WRs to play on the same team in the history of football, college or pro. No TDs, two ints and a lot of great defensive plays.

Offensively, I think the more likely Heisman candidate between these two teams is now Stepfan Taylor. Nunes had some good passes but a lot of misses. If Andrew Luck had been playing in this game Stanford would have won by 40. As it is, Nunes is getting better and did enough to get this win. If Stanford keeps playing at this level they have a good chance to make a serious run for another BCS game.

The spirit of Jim Harbaugh is alive and well on the Farm.

Five sacks. I think the first one, in the first quarter where they almost dismembered Barkley and he fumbled, really softened him up. It got to the point where he was hurrying his throws even when there was no immediate pressure. The second half was completely dominated by the Stanford defense. SC having to use a backup center made a big difference, but that wasn't the only part of the line that was manhandled.

Luck had nothing to do with it.


That sign was money. best sign of the season so far.

Truman wrote:Well, if anything, we can at least put a slug in this retarded USC-MNC discussion...

what you really mean is van's going to go on relentlessly about being zero precedent for how far usc is going to drop in the polls.

Mikey wrote:Against an offense that scored 48 last year and was supposedly even better this year, they constantly pressured Barkley, completely stuffed the running game and didn't allow a score for almost the entire final three quarters.

Last year's squad had Matt Kalil at LT, and he didn't give up a sack all season. They also had Khaled Holmes, who was this team's O-line captain, signal caller and best player. Losing him was huge for this game. You saw how his replacement, a true freshman, kept having to look back at Barkley rather than make the calls himself, and the pressure right up the gut from Stanford killed Barkley all night. He had no time to do anything but three-step drops leading to meh dumpoffs and WR screens. Having zero running game only made it worse, allowing Stanford to tee off on the passing attack.

Ken nailed it. The O-line was horrible. They simply couldn't stand up to Stanford's physicality. Also, that physicality extended to the secondary, where they kept jarring balls loose from USC's receivers every time Barkley did manage to complete something downfield.

Stanford's D vs USC O-line was a total mismatch, and things weren't much better for USC on the other side of the ball.

As shocked as 'Spray seems to be by this game, I wasn't surprised at all. I must have said a half-dozen times here that until USC proves they can get by Stanford any dreams of a title game appearence are pointless. I had USC losing two games this year, and possibly three: Stanford, Oregon, @Utah. With what I've seen so far, four losses wouldn't surprise me either. They could easily lose to one of the Arizona schools, ND or UCLA.

Then again, they may pull a typical USC and get their shit together from here on out, resulting in another Rose Bowl. Doubtful, and it still wouldn't quite accomplish what Barkley and TJ McDonald returned this year to do, but that would be typical USC.

I really don't see it. The way their two lines are playing, I think a trainwreck is far more likely than a sudden turnaround. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see them go into the tank now, knowing this season's only real goal is already lost.

M Club wrote:

Truman wrote:Well, if anything, we can at least put a slug in this retarded USC-MNC discussion...

what you really mean is van's going to go on relentlessly about being zero precedent for how far usc is going to drop in the polls.

Nah. Where Pac 10/12 teams losing on the road by one score to good squads and falling like a stone in the polls is concerned, there are all sorts of precedents. This ain't the SEC. A loss in the Pac never means the winning team is good. It only means the losing team sucks.

Van wrote:Ken nailed it.

Don’t give me too much credit… I’m faaaar from a CFB guru (just check my pick ‘em scores). An orangutan could’ve watched and said the same. It was plainly obvious. The USC center was getting dumpster raped all game.

...and I thought the Furd had terrible fans


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr- ... ncaaf.html

Ken wrote:It was plainly obvious. The USC center was getting dumpster raped all game.

He really was. It's rare to see a center literally getting thrown back into his QB to the point that it interferes with the QB's handling of the ball, yet we saw that multiple times last night.

That's the stuff of Pee Wee league football.

Van wrote:He really was. It's rare to see a center literally getting thrown back into his QB to the point that it interferes with the QB's handling of the ball, yet we saw that multiple times last night.

That's the stuff of Pee Wee league football.

Pssst.... Van, let me let you in on a little secret that most of us know except you...


Stanford Football: Still on Steroids... Magic Glove Not So Magic Afterall



Take this diet pill... and you will lose weight.

...and go on a low calorie diet.

Use this magic freezing glove... and you will increase athletic performance.


Oh yeah, and get a steroid injection.

Jsc810 wrote:Just getting to a computer this morning, I noticed that my USC pick on yahoo pickem lost and I just figured that they didn't beat the spread.

Holy shit, Stanford beat them again. I'm stunned.

You people really need to start watching more college football. Absolutely no one who follows the Pac at all was stunned.

M2 wrote:

Pssst.... Van, let me let you in on a little secret that most of us know except you...


Stanford Football: Still on Steroids... Magic Glove Not So Magic Afterall


Take this diet pill... and you will lose weight.

...and go on a low calorie diet.

Use this magic freezing glove... and you will increase athletic performance.

Oh yeah, and get a steroid injection.

I see you've learned your lessons well from the Republican spin machine.
There's absolutely nothing in that article about anybody taking steroids.

Excellent work. You could get a job with the Romney campaign.

Mikey wrote:
I see you've learned your lessons well from the Republican spin machine.
There's absolutely nothing in that article about anybody taking steroids.

Excellent work. You could get a job with the Romney campaign.

Hits a little to close to home... ay ???


Nice try by thinking you can turn this into a republican and democrat debate... but that will only work in the CDS forum.

The "Scientific Community" is laughing at you... and all the profits that the furd stands to make with this hoax. Let alone football players that have magically larger heads than the other teams football players.

Nice try. But your gyrations are laughable to anybody with more than half a brain -- or that's not a KAL fan.

Not only are you taking your cues from Romney, you're pulling a Schmick by fabricating an excuse in advance for the fact that your team sucks. Sorry, but you can't avoid the fact that your team sucks.

On the other hand, you probably do actually believe in your own imagined fantasies. As George once said: "Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie...if you believe it."

Jsc810 wrote:Well you were the one saying how you thought USC should be ranked higher than LSU and that USC would beat the hell out of LSU in the championship game, no way the QB would lose in his last game for USC, and so on.

How convenient of you to omit the first part of what I said, which was that I didn't think they would even get there in the first place. I said that too many things would have to go right, starting with no key injuries and no mishaps along the way, neither of which I felt they would be able to avoid.

Sure enough, they lost their best D-lineman before the season even started, and they lost their best O-lineman who was also the signal caller anchoring the center of the line before the Stanford game. Their lack of depth was always going to be an issue on both lines, never mind losing the two most important players.

I said that if USC somehow had everything go right and they managed to get to Miami, nope, no way that team loses to an LSU team coached by Les Miles. That team would have managed to keep their heads on straight throughout an entire season, and they would've remained healthy.

I said it probably wouldn't happen. I predicted they would go 10-2 during the regular season, and quite possibly worse.

The fact remains that you need to watch more college football. Stanford had beaten USC three straight and four out of five. USC came into this roadie off of a disinterested performance 3,500 miles away. There was no reason to be stunned by another Stanford victory.

If a team doesn't have a really strong offensive and defensive lines, they're not going to have a lot of fun playing LSU, fyi.

They're also not going to get the opportunity to play them, so it's a moot point. The team I was talking about didn't materialize, and I never thought they would. I would have been far more surprised to see them become that team than to see them lose again to Stanford.

Since you think a "Scientific" article.... is out to get you and Stanfurd ... lets see what a former Stanfurd athlete who has written a 86-page thesis on the subject has to say, shall we ???



http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation ... attle.html

Minaker studied Stanford varsity athletes:

His sample size is admittedly small, with nine of 89 athletes who answered the survey question on steroids admitting they took them — five of those being baseball players. He also points out, in an appendix to the research, that the Stanford football team was largely uncooperative with the survey and "remains shrouded in secrecy" about its supplement usage.

Would you like to continue this debate with me ???

Or would it be best for you to run along now and back to the CDS forum with your tail between your legs ?


Your call...

What debate?

You're an ankle biting idiot. EOS.

M2, is your point supposed to be that Stanford players use PEDs, and that they're somehow unique in this regard?

Good call.


Let me help you out with your trip home

Mikey wrote:What debate?

You're an ankle biting idiot. EOS.

M2 wrote:Good call.

Are you actually starting to come to your senses?

Van wrote:M2, is your point supposed to be that Stanford players use PEDs, and that they're somehow unique in this regard?

Well, not in regards to U$C...

Or any other major program, all of which sport players who look just like that.

Van wrote:Or any other major program, all of which sport players who look just like that.

Yeah, right.

Are you telling me that Cal couldn't easily produce similar pics of monster physical specimins? Or that the SEC isn't chock full of them? Or that the....

Van wrote:Are you telling me that Cal couldn't easily produce similar pics of monster physical specimins?

Lets see them ?



Cal by the way uses the Blasquezian approach.

Eisen: Mike Blasquez

Jones-Drew: Yes, amazing

Eisen: He's currently strength coach at Cal, you met him at De La Salle

Jones-Drew: Yes, Cal is going to be a good football team because of him. He is going to get them in Blasquezian shape

Jsc810 wrote:

M2 wrote:Jones-Drew: Yes, Cal is going to be a good football team because of him. He is going to get them in Blasquezian shape

When will that happen?

It happens EVERY weekend during football season.


Rookie STARTER for the Eagles Mychal Kendricks broke up the final play, enabling the Eagles to go 2-0

I think he was enquiring as to when we can expect to see Cal become a good football team.

I would tend to with m2 that Cal players do not use steroids or any other PEDs......or at least that they don't play like they're using theml :)

You'd actually have to perform at a certain level to have it enhanced by something....anything. Granted Cal can't go anywhere but up so maybe they should start using something.

Would you please just shut up.

Take Taylor out?

Is this a man date kind of thing?
I sort of thought Schmick might be a fag but wasn't really sure until now.

Yeah, maybe just a little.